Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id QAA10938 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Tue, 9 Oct 2001 16:28:29 +0100 Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3102A6D089@inchna.stir.ac.uk> From: Vincent Campbell <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: "'email@example.com'" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: RE: Memes in brain Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001 16:23:56 +0100 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: email@example.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
Mentioning Beckett is very apposite here, as his general point (as far as I
was taught, and understood it) was precisely about the imperfection of
language as a means of genuinely conveying meaning. Hence all the weird
terminology ('unover' is one, IIRC), and circular narratives to his work.
You can never fully understand the narratives of a Beckett work, since he
deliberately confuses the audience.
I used a quote from Beckett's Molloy in my PhD acknowledgements, that summed
up my PhD experience:
'... and even my sense of identity was wrapped in a namelessness often hard
to penetrate... already all was fading, waves and particles, there could be
no things but nameless things, no names but thingless names.'
When I first saw Beckett's work I hated it, and I still think that he spent
his entire career making one point over and over again, but I perserved with
the novel Molloy and ended up enjoying it against all my inclinations.
I'm sure Angela knows way more than I do about Beckett.
> From: Derek Gatherer
> Reply To: email@example.com
> Sent: Tuesday, October 9, 2001 3:48 pm
> Subject: Re:Memes in brain
> I think that the main problem for external memes lies in the question of
> Yes, it is a problem. Especially when nobody can agree on the meaning.
> What, for instance, is the meaning of "Waiting for Godot"? Something
> was going on in Sam Beckett's head when he wrote it, but to what extent
> is that something reproduced when we watch a production of the play? Did
> he even intend that we should 'understand' some point he was trying to
> make -
> or is it Zen-like, some sort of provocation to do our own thinking, not
> necessarily congruent in any way with Beckett's own thoughts?
> So, although I admit that I am totally at a loss to analyse meaning
> , I'd submit that the internal approach does no better.
> Somebody was making a point (it might have been you, Bill, possibly??)
> even if memes can be demonstrated not to be in brains, they might be in
> I just can't handle minds, I admit - everything I have ever been taught is
> about analysing observables, and unfortunately minds aren't in that
> I'm not sure if the internalist memeticists really do claim to be
> minds. But I'd be very suspicious of any proposed science of minds - the
> Freudians set out in that direction and vanished off the scientific radar
> This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
> Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
> For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
> see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 09 2001 - 16:33:54 BST